BTC $65,131.27 -0.08%
ETH $1,923.47 +0.03%
BNB $609.34 +2.87%
XRP $1.04 +1.08%
SOL $76.00 +2.67%
TRX $0.3283 +0.19%
DOGE $0.0709 +1.65%
ADA $0.2002 +1.29%
BCH $217.33 +0.80%
LINK $8.35 +1.02%
HYPE $54.48 -2.86%
AAVE $91.39 +1.82%
SUI $0.6977 +3.86%
XLM $0.1659 +3.22%
ZEC $502.85 -1.39%
BTC $65,131.27 -0.08%
ETH $1,923.47 +0.03%
BNB $609.34 +2.87%
XRP $1.04 +1.08%
SOL $76.00 +2.67%
TRX $0.3283 +0.19%
DOGE $0.0709 +1.65%
ADA $0.2002 +1.29%
BCH $217.33 +0.80%
LINK $8.35 +1.02%
HYPE $54.48 -2.86%
AAVE $91.39 +1.82%
SUI $0.6977 +3.86%
XLM $0.1659 +3.22%
ZEC $502.85 -1.39%

ethe

All
Article
Flash

first_img SharpLink opposes Ethereum EIP-8363, stating that zero returns will undermine the core reason for institutions to choose ETH

Joseph Chalom, CEO of the Ethereum treasury company SharpLink, posted in opposition to Ethereum Improvement Proposal EIP-8363. According to his disclosure, the current network issues new ETH to validators as staking rewards at a variable yield rate of about 2.75%. If the proposal is passed, it will be implemented in phases over approximately a year and a half, gradually destroying part of the issuance rewards as the staking amount increases. When about 50% of ETH is staked, the staking yield will drop to 0%, and validators will only be able to rely on transaction fees, which currently account for only 15% of staking rewards, to sustain themselves.Chalom presented four points of opposition:Staking yield is the factual benchmark for all on-chain interest rates. The approximately $35 billion TVL of liquid staking tokens is the core collateral for on-chain lending. A yield of zero will raise on-chain capital costs, making actual yields approach or even become negative. Collateral will migrate to assets that still generate yields, and independent stakers and small to medium operators will be the first to be squeezed out.The native yield characteristic is precisely the key reason institutions choose ETH over Bitcoin. Erasing this difference is equivalent to voluntarily giving up its competitive advantage just as ETH is outperforming Bitcoin.Issuance is not a cost to external parties but a transfer of value to security maintainers and builders within the network. Destroying it is a destruction of value rather than a redistribution of this portion of value.The current timing is the worst; Ethereum is in a rising phase of institutional adoption, and destruction incentives will suppress this wave of adoption momentum.He stated that SharpLink agrees with the proposal authors' goal of making ETH scarce and stabilizing the staking rate at a reasonable level, but believes this should be achieved through the existing base fee destruction mechanism rather than altering the economic foundation of the protocol.

Analysis: The average time from Tether's freeze proposal to execution exceeds 2 hours, allowing high-risk addresses to transfer funds by taking advantage of the time difference

FlashRescue co-founder @DarcyAri posted on the X platform that recently, during a joint investigation with partners on a case, Tether experienced a transfer of funds from one address during the execution of a proposal to freeze addresses, resulting in a decrease in the frozen amount. Further review by FlashRescue revealed that this is not an isolated incident. As of August 3, 2026, through an analysis of 2,955 Tether freeze events on the Ethereum and Tron networks, it was found that among addresses involved in risks such as entity sanctions, fraudulent activities, money laundering, FATF blacklist jurisdictions, and malicious attacks: 60 addresses cleared their assets and completed front-running transfers before the formal execution of the freeze, with a total net outflow of 20,429,847 USDT, starting transfers an average of 13 minutes and 59 seconds after the freeze proposal was submitted, and completing the main fund transfers within 15 minutes and 15 seconds; additionally, 113 addresses transferred some assets before the freeze was executed, involving approximately 35,524,300 USDT.The average time from the submission of the freeze proposal to the formal execution of the freeze by Tether is 2 hours, 16 minutes, and 15 seconds, indicating a long time window between the public announcement of the freeze proposal and its actual execution. On July 3, a cluster of addresses transferred funds continuously within minutes and then split the transfers to the same address. The above cases suggest that some high-risk addresses may be actively monitoring Tether freeze proposals and utilizing the time difference between the public announcement of the proposal and the actual effectiveness of the freeze to implement front-running transfers. This mechanism leads to the failure of freezing the involved funds and undermines the actual effectiveness of sanctions, anti-money laundering, and law enforcement cooperation measures.
app_icon
ChainCatcher Building the Web3 world with innovations.